Bought 2001 Suburban new. Never used emergency brake, but brake has failed and worn into my rotor to a point that both rotors now need replacing. This seems to be a very common problem and have found a number of complaints throughout the internet. Also have a family member that works for GM as a mechanic and says they have a defective system. He does these jobs all the time.

- Dickinson, TX, USA

2001 Chevrolet Suburban - parking brake has failed. We did not realize failure until pointed out to us by mechanic; thought it normal that the brake goes to the floor.

- Scottsdale, AZ, USA

Complaint regarding manufacturing defect- parking brake. (nar)

- Katy, TX, USA

Parking brake fails to hold.

- Cedar Park, TX, USA

I took my 2001 Suburban for the annual inspection. The shop called to say it did not pass due to the parking brake not holding. There is never a need to use the parking brake in houston, therefore I have never used it. There are 4 people in my office that have had the exact problem and had to pay to repair this problem because it is considered normal wear. I called Chevrolet zone to report this, but of course they claim to know nothing about any problems with the emergency brake. The shop removed the tires and found that the brake pads were ripped to shreads and the rotor was so badly etched that it had to be replaced. Total cost to repair the problem on a vehicle with 37,000 miles was $350 per side. Please investigate this problem so hopefully Chevrolet will have to announce the clear defect in the new Suburban/Tahoe design. The mechanic told me he sees this problem on a regular basis.

- Houston, TX, USA

Consumer took vehicle to have a state inspection done and found that the parking brake was not holding the vehicle. It was taken to the Chevrolet dealer, and they found that the parking brake shoes were worn out, and both brake rotors needed to be replaced.

- Abilene, TX, USA

Parking brake failure - 2001 Chevrolet Suburban during state inspection (Texas) apparent cause of parking brake failure is due to misalignment of parking brake shoe. Chevrolet has redesigned their the retaining clip which holds the parking brake shoe in place. The redesigned clip does not allow the parking brake shoe to float or move inside the rotor of the rear parking brake assembly. In this case there was abnormal wear to the inside of the parking brake rotor on the driver's side as well as abnormal wear on the parking brake shoe. There was no noticeable wear on the passenger's side rear brake rotor of parking brake shoe. Chevrolet has issued a technical bulletin to its dealers which addresses the parking brake shoe coming into contact with the rotor when the parking brake is not engaged or set. The fix is the redesigned clip which replaces the old clip. In our case, we do not use the parking brake on a regular basis (if at all) and the problem was found during a normal routine state inspection (Texas) - as it failed to pass the test due to the parking brake not holding.

- Katy, TX, USA

I recently tokk my 2001 chev Suburban to the dealership for misc repairs. One of which was that the emergency/parking brake no longer held the vehicle at all. Either in forward or reverse. One day I went to use it and it didn't work at all. How long had it been this way" I rarely, if ever, use the parking brake so I assumed it was broken and would be covered under warranty since the vehicle is only 2.5 years old and only has 18,900 mi. The diagnosis was that the parking brake needed "adjustment" and this was a normal wear condition and would cost me $65. I felt I had no choice to not have my brakes work, so I complied. It was suggested by the service advisor to use it more often and that would keep it in adjustment" I feel there is something wrong with this brake or vehicle design, especially after reading others complaints on this website. I had my previous vehicle for 11 years and 90K miles and never had an issue with a parking brake. This is not something that you can afford to go to use and find out it doesn't work! based on the number of complaints I urge you to look into this dangerous situation - not to mention costly to the consumer for no reason at all.

- Metairie, LA, USA

I took my 2001 Suburban to have a state inspection done and found that the parking brake was not holding. I then took the vehicle to the Chevrolet dealer and they found that the parking brake shoes were worn all the way down and both rotors needed replacement because they were rusted inside and the parking bake shoes would not hold. I only have 37000 miles on the vehicle. The dealer was only willing to split the cost of the rotors and the installation of the rotors even though the parking bake wore out after only 37000 miles or even less. The dealer reported that the parking brake should last longer than 37000 miles. I am the only person who drives this vehicle and the parking brake was never left on while driving. There is a defect on the engineering of the parking brake system that it wears out this fast with only being used when the vehicle is parked.

- Springfield, VA, USA

I asked huffines Chevrolet [plano, tx] to check my 2001 Chevrolet Suburban as the parking brake was not holding. The pedal would depress all the way to the floor and the vehicle would roll. Their service department found that the emergency parking brake had caused premature wear on the brake pads and rotors. The dealer indicated that this was the result of the body style change in 2000. The new design of the emergency brake placed it in contact with the rotors which causes premature wear. This is not a repair that is covered under the 36 month/36,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty. Despite that, the dealer replaced the pads and rotors at no charge. I am still not clear as to why, but the dealer told me that I would have incurred the expense of the repair if the vehicle has over 30,000 miles. I'm led to believe that this is an item, that due to the number of reported occurrences, that GM is repairing under warranty up to 30,000 miles. I consider myself fortunate in that I brought my vehicle to them at 29,700 miles. As a side note, I will point out that when this vehicle was purchased new from huffines Chevrolet, the parking pedal would depress all the way to the floor. My wife and I both found that to be odd. We always use the parking brake and we never had one operate in that fashion. But the dealer said that was normal and that brake was holding the vehicle. The existence of a potential emergency brake mechanism defect is a very serious and dangerous case for all owners of the 2000-2004 Chevrolet Suburban. Many households own and operate these vehicles and such a defect puts our wives and children at risk. I recommend, with extreme prejudice, that NHTSA conduct an investigation into this issue.

- Richardson, TX, USA

Parking brake failed.

- Magnolia, TX, USA

The emergency brake is not hold properly while the vehicle was parked. The dealer stated that nothing could be done vehicle was out of warranty.

- Austin, TX, USA

Emergency brake failed, and vehicle didn't pass the local inspection in Texas. Dealer stated, "we were aware of the problem but we didnt know how to fix it."

- Kyle, TX, USA

Consumer stated that vehicle would not release the parking brake when driving. Dealer notified.

- Cypress, TX, USA

Consumer stated the parking brake failed to hold. The dealer had been contacted. Several other Suburban had failed inspection because of poor parking brakes.

- Beaumont, TX, USA

Parking brake not holding-- goes all the way to the floor.

- Gatesville, TX, USA

I am concerned there is a Chevrolet manufacturing defect, if what the lone star Chevrolet representative told me is correct and an unused emergency brake in a 2001 Suburban can destroy itself at any time making the vehicle unsafe to drive. On 3/10/2003 I took the vehicle to lone star Chevrolet for its 50K mile routine maintenance. Nothing was wrong with the vehicle, except for a squealing from the right side when the breaks were applied. I asked them to check the brakes. On their first call, the representative said the mechanic found the front brake rotors to be glazed over, causing the noise. I told them to fix it, a standard wear repair item. Later, the representative called again to say the mechanic found the emergency brakes were broken, not holding against the drum, which caused, the car to be unsafe to the point it would not pass inspection. When I asked how that could be since I had not experienced any difficulty in stopping vehicle, he said the emergency brake was a totally separate system from the regular brakes. I pointed out several facts to him: 1)I purchased the car new and have been the only person to drive the car except when it was in their shop for repairs. 2)I have never (not once) activated the emergency brake on the vehicle and I always check to make certain its not on when its returned from repairs. 3)the car passed its annual inspection during 12/2002 with the inspection done by their facility. There was no mention about the emergency brake not working then. In light of these issues, I asked the representative to explain how a part that has never been activated got a drum that is so badly scored and worn that it no longer works and why the problem wasn't noticed during December. He then said normal road vibrations can cause the parts to slip out of alignment causing the damage at any time, and it was not damaged during December. He went so far as to say that their mechanics saw this problem all the time.

- Jersey Village, TX, USA

The emergency parking brake experienced premature wear.

- Austin, TX, USA

The vehicle failed state inspection due to the emergency brake being inoperative. Took vehicle to dealer who diagnosed a manufacturer's design flaw with the emergency brake. The design of the emergency brake placed it in contact with the rotors which caused premature wear.

- Houston, TX, USA

Consumer noticed failure of the emergency brake retainer clip. Dealer has been notified,

- Portland, OR, USA